Re: Qualcomm position- Extensions

It seems like there's still a lot of folks pushing for the normative
language here and that we're only O(weeks) away from getting the exception
we need to make this happen. That's fine by us. Let's re-evaluate this when
most of us will get together in Austin after the holidays. If we're still
at an impasse then I'd like to ask the chairs that we vote on this issue.

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 10:44 AM Giridhar Mandyam <mandyam@qti.qualcomm.com>
wrote:

> > Note: I believe that only the appid extension would be normative in any
> case, because that's the only extension with sufficient implementation.
>
>
>
> To clarify:  that was *not* my recommendation.  I assume that this the
> above is Google’s recommendation – correct?
>
>
>
> -Giri
>
>
>
> *From:* Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 6, 2018 10:41 AM
> *To:* Giridhar Mandyam <mandyam@qti.qualcomm.com>
> *Cc:* W3C Web Authn WG <public-webauthn@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Qualcomm position- Extensions
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 8:18 AM Giridhar Mandyam <mandyam@qti.qualcomm.com>
> wrote:
>
> Qualcomm does not recommend changing the current position of the group.  I
> realize the request below only sought a response if a member company wanted
> to change the position of the group, but I felt it was important to
> re-iterate Qualcomm’s position.
>
>
>
> This is consistent with the presentation I made to the W3C Directorate in
> October – see enclosed.  The recommendations are summarized on slide 10 and
> reproduced here:
>
>
>
>    - Continue to keep normative guidance in spec that all extensions are
>    optional
>    - Follow Sam’s suggestion to specify AAID extension as RECOMMENDED
>    {“Sam” = Sam Weiler}
>    - Keep all extension text as normative
>
> Note: I believe that only the appid extension would be normative in any
> case, because that's the only extension with sufficient implementation.
>